Russians may have a strong case in Turkish shootdown (The Hill)

[Grey Havoc]

This analysis may be of some interest: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/261300-russians-may-have-a-strong-case-in-turkish-shootdown

 

[sferrin]

I think it could be argued either way depending on one's aims. IMO if Russia hadn't locked up Turkish fighters on previous occasions, played fast and loose with Turkeys airspace, and attacked Turkmen forces, this probably wouldn't have happened. Viewed in isolation, a 17-second clipping of one's airspace would hardly warrant a shoot-down, and (as Turkey demonstrated on previous Russian incursions) would likely have just warned them out and lodged a complaint. But there was all the previous stuff so there was the shoot down.

 

[kaiserd]

Unsurprisingly this comes down to power-play politics between Turkey & Russia.
Russia's aircraft have not respected Turkey's airspace and have attacked Turkey's proxies in the Syrian conflict - Russia's signal to Turkey.
Turkey clearly decided the next time a Russian aircraft in any way violated their airspace they'd come down heavy and make an example, hence the shoot-down - Turkey's signal to Russia.

Russian claims that Turkish airspace not violated almost certainly lies, Turkey clearly had complementary agendas in addition to pure self-defense when shooting down the Fencer.

International law is a moot point for the relevant parties, the 2 regimes (Russia's & Turkey's) very similar in their authoritarian nature, contempt for opposition and free speech, and facility for invention in the face of inconvenient reality.

 

[lastdingo]

I think it could be argued either way depending on one's aims. IMO if Russia hadn't locked up Turkish fighters on previous occasions, played fast and loose with Turkeys airspace, and attacked Turkmen forces, this probably wouldn't have happened. Viewed in isolation, a 17-second clipping of one's airspace would hardly warrant a shoot-down, and (as Turkey demonstrated on previous Russian incursions) would likely have just warned them out and lodged a complaint. But there was all the previous stuff so there was the shoot down.

Turkmen forces bombed or not - that would have been on Syrian sovereign territory and thus not Turkey's affair.
Much of the peace in the world depends on recognizing that championing the cause of minorities in other countries is not a legal justification for violence.

BTW, so far I haven't seen any evidence of prior Russian incursions, I only faintly remember some accusations about it. It's difficult to prove anyway, since radar logs can be fabricated and no truly neutral observers were present.

 

[seruriermarshal]

What's happen when a Fighter into Russia airspace ? And we never forgot MH17 .

 

[Orionblamblam]

Much of the peace in the world depends on recognizing that championing the cause of minorities in other countries is not a legal justification for violence.

Interesting, then, that one of the reasons given for Russias conquest of eastern Ukraine was championing the cause of ethnic Russians.

 

[sferrin]

I think it could be argued either way depending on one's aims. IMO if Russia hadn't locked up Turkish fighters on previous occasions, played fast and loose with Turkeys airspace, and attacked Turkmen forces, this probably wouldn't have happened. Viewed in isolation, a 17-second clipping of one's airspace would hardly warrant a shoot-down, and (as Turkey demonstrated on previous Russian incursions) would likely have just warned them out and lodged a complaint. But there was all the previous stuff so there was the shoot down.

Turkmen forces bombed or not - that would have been on Syrian sovereign territory and thus not Turkey's affair.

Yeah, you should probably read the rest of my post. I never said it was. I said it was a contributing factor.

 

[lastdingo]

Much of the peace in the world depends on recognizing that championing the cause of minorities in other countries is not a legal justification for violence.

Interesting, then, that one of the reasons given for Russias conquest of eastern Ukraine was championing the cause of ethnic Russians.

But one example for why such championing should not be accepted as excuse for violence.

I think it could be argued either way depending on one's aims. IMO if Russia hadn't locked up Turkish fighters on previous occasions, played fast and loose with Turkeys airspace, and attacked Turkmen forces, this probably wouldn't have happened. Viewed in isolation, a 17-second clipping of one's airspace would hardly warrant a shoot-down, and (as Turkey demonstrated on previous Russian incursions) would likely have just warned them out and lodged a complaint. But there was all the previous stuff so there was the shoot down.

Turkmen forces bombed or not - that would have been on Syrian sovereign territory and thus not Turkey's affair.

Yeah, you should probably read the rest of my post. I never said it was. I said it was a contributing factor.

Look for yourself what you implied by the "hardly warrant a shoot-down" followed by "But". You wrote "warrant", not "led to" or "caused" or "provoked" or "ended in". One meaning of "to warrant" is "to justify", after all.

 

[seruriermarshal]

But one example for why such championing should not be accepted as excuse for violence.

Excuse ? I say Fair .

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Much of the peace in the world depends on recognizing that championing the cause of minorities in other countries is not a legal justification for violence.

That's what every unjust regime prosecuting its own people says. The international tradition and practice of law recognizes that to hold sovereignty as a government one most act as a government and that "the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together". De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Hugo Grotius. By waging war against its elements of its own people the Syrian Assad state no longer has a recognisable legal claim of sovereignty over those elements.

World peace depends on the initiators of violent cycles to desist from their actions either by choice or by external restraint. No ammount of ignorant apologists and victim playing will change this.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This analysis may be of some interest: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/261300-russians-may-have-a-strong-case-in-turkish-shootdown

Any prosecutor will need to get in line. There have been large numbers of similar shoot downs of military and civilian aircraft over the years near and over borders. At least in this case there was no unintended but criminally culpable destruction of a civilian airliner. Something the Russians and the Soviets before them have done on multiple occasions. Three occasions alone costing the lives of 569 innocent civilians (KAL 902, KAL 007, MH 17).

 

[lastdingo]

Much of the peace in the world depends on recognizing that championing the cause of minorities in other countries is not a legal justification for violence.

That's what every unjust regime prosecuting its own people says. The international tradition and practice of law recognizes that to hold sovereignty as a government one most act as a government and that "the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together". De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Hugo Grotius. By waging war against its elements of its own people the Syrian Assad state no longer has a recognisable legal claim of sovereignty over those elements.

World peace depends on the initiators of violent cycles to desist from their actions either by choice or by external restraint. No amount of ignorant apologists and victim playing will change this.

Many countries can make up allegations and then invade other countries with such excuses.
The only way to keep peace widespread is to not tolerate such behaviour and to insist that if the evidence is truly clear, the UNSC issues an authorization.

That, of course is compromised by the veto rights (which should be abolished), but that's another story. Rule of force and widespread pretences are not acceptable. Countries must not dismiss the sovereignty of already recognised sovereign countries. The community of states can and shall do so in the rare cases where this is necessary (but rarely did because countries hardly ever truly care about human suffering and wars are rather about different motives - see Biafra, Khmer, South Sudan, currently Eritrea).

 

[sferrin]

Look for yourself what you implied by the "hardly warrant a shoot-down" followed by "But". You wrote "warrant", not "led to" or "caused" or "provoked" or "ended in". One meaning of "to warrant" is "to justify", after all.

You'll also note I listed several other events in addition to the one you latched onto. If another nation continues to disregard your airspace, locks up your fighters for minutes at a time, then yeah, a shoot down will be warranted. A nation doesn't HAVE to be under attack. They have the right to police their airspace.

 

[Triton]

BTW, so far I haven't seen any evidence of prior Russian incursions, I only faintly remember some accusations about it. It's difficult to prove anyway, since radar logs can be fabricated and no truly neutral observers were present.

Turkey has called in the Russian ambassador several times for Russia's violations of Turkish airspace and lodged condemnations for these violations. Turkish F-16s have also intercepted Russian jets in Turkish airspace.

Turkey has no obligation to convince you of the veracity of its claims. The radar track was sufficient for the United States government.

 

[Triton]

You'll also note I listed several other events in addition to the one you latched onto. If another nation continues to disregard your airspace, locks up your fighters for minutes at a time, then yeah, a shoot down will be warranted. A nation doesn't HAVE to be under attack. They have the right to police their airspace.

Indeed. Turkey has a right to self-defense under International law. The United States and the members of the NATO alliance believe that Turkey was exercising its right to self-defense.

If Russia believes that Turkey violated International law, she can let the International Court of Justice in the Hague decide.

 

[Arjen]

If Russia believes that Turkey violated International law, she can let the International Court of Justice in the Hague decide.

Russia has signed, but has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. Same goes for Syria.
Turkey has not signed the Rome Statute at all.

I would be very surprised if Russia would present its case to the ICC. I would be even more surprised if Turkey would accept the ICC's verdict.

 

[Pasoleati]

That's what every unjust regime prosecuting its own people says. The international tradition and practice of law recognizes that to hold sovereignty as a government one most act as a government and that "the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together". De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Hugo Grotius. By waging war against its elements of its own people the Syrian Assad state no longer has a recognisable legal claim of sovereignty over those elements.

World peace depends on the initiators of violent cycles to desist from their actions either by choice or by external restraint. No ammount of ignorant apologists and victim playing will change this.

Then one must ask that the U.S. regime lost its legal claim when it was deeply involved in the destruction of its own people (Indiana). Or do we have double-standards?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Self-defense is one thing. Being trigger-happy is another. That's why I was rejected for law enforcement. So I know.

 

[sferrin]

Self-defense is one thing. Being trigger-happy is another. That's why I was rejected for law enforcement. So I know.

I wouldn't consider Turkey's actions as "trigger happy". On the contrary, they actually have shown more restraint than others might, all things considered.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Then one must ask that the U.S. regime lost its legal claim when it was deeply involved in the destruction of its own people (Indiana). Or do we have double-standards?

Indiana was admitted to the US almost exactly 199 years ago. Pretty sure most modern treaties and international laws came rather well after that.

 

[lastdingo]

I suppose it was a typo, but the segregation well into the 60's is another example.
In fact, even Switzerland refusing the right to vote to women till the 70's would have been in trouble.

The more basic problem is a different one, though: Abuse would be rampant if a system was accepted in whcih the accuser can also assume the role of judge and executioner. That's why IL defined the UNSC as the judge - not the Turkish government.

The dysfunction of the UNSC in regard to the veto powers and their proxies is the real problem, and both Russia an the U.S. are among the culprits in this regard.

 

[sferrin]

I suppose it was a typo, but the segregation well into the 60's is another example.
In fact, even Switzerland refusing the right to vote to women till the 70's would have been in trouble.

The more basic problem is a different one, though: Abuse would be rampant if a system was accepted in whcih the accuser can also assume the role of judge and executioner. That's why IL defined the UNSC as the judge - not the Turkish government.

The dysfunction of the UNSC in regard to the veto powers and their proxies is the real problem, and both Russia an the U.S. are among the culprits in this regard.

Pretty sure nobody needs the permission of the UNSC in order to police ones own airspace.

 

[lastdingo]

I suppose it was a typo, but the segregation well into the 60's is another example.
In fact, even Switzerland refusing the right to vote to women till the 70's would have been in trouble.

The more basic problem is a different one, though: Abuse would be rampant if a system was accepted in whcih the accuser can also assume the role of judge and executioner. That's why IL defined the UNSC as the judge - not the Turkish government.

The dysfunction of the UNSC in regard to the veto powers and their proxies is the real problem, and both Russia an the U.S. are among the culprits in this regard.

Pretty sure this was about Turkish ambitions to be protectors of Turkmen in Syria.

Pretty sure nobody needs the permission of the UNSC in order to police ones own airspace.

 

[sferrin]

I suppose it was a typo, but the segregation well into the 60's is another example.
In fact, even Switzerland refusing the right to vote to women till the 70's would have been in trouble.

The more basic problem is a different one, though: Abuse would be rampant if a system was accepted in whcih the accuser can also assume the role of judge and executioner. That's why IL defined the UNSC as the judge - not the Turkish government.

The dysfunction of the UNSC in regard to the veto powers and their proxies is the real problem, and both Russia an the U.S. are among the culprits in this regard.

Pretty sure this was about Turkish ambitions to be protectors of Turkmen in Syria.

Pretty sure nobody needs the permission of the UNSC in order to police ones own airspace.

So you'd categorize Turkey's interest in protecting Turkmen much the same as Russia's desire to "protect" it's countrymen in Crimea then.

 

[lastdingo]

I don't think Russia was really concerned about Russians on the Crimea. It wanted to grab that for imperialistic and naval base reasons.

 

[jeffb]

I don't think Russia was really concerned about Russians on the Crimea. It wanted to grab that for imperialistic and naval base reasons.

Yes and no. There was a whole heap of very shady goings on in Ukraine just after Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in Moscow. A number of pro-Russian politicians in the "Western" half of the Ukraine fell out of their bedroom windows, were found shot dead in their garages, etc. Not taking sides, just saying there's a lot of stuff going on that we don't necessarily get to hear about over here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-ukraine-crisis-crime-idUSKBN0N718I20150416